Filed: Aug. 05, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6036 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIE JEROME MCRAE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:98-cr-00037-F-13) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 5, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Will
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6036 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIE JEROME MCRAE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:98-cr-00037-F-13) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 5, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6036
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIE JEROME MCRAE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:98-cr-00037-F-13)
Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 5, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Jerome McRae, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Jerome McRae appeals the district court’s order
denying his petition for a writ of audita querela. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm. See United States v. Torres,
282 F.3d 1241, 1245
(10th Cir. 2002) (“[A] writ of audita querela is not available
to a petitioner when other remedies exist, such as a motion to
vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.”) (internal quotation
marks omitted). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2